Last June, Glenn Greenwald at The Guardian revealed that Edward Snowden was the NSA insider behind “one of the most significant leaks in US political history.” Snowden explained his motivations through Greenwald by saying, “There are more important things than money…. harming people isn’t my goal. Transparency is.” Such altruistic motivations were welcome news at the time but have come into question recently given that only a tiny fraction of the documents have been released nearly a year after Snowden started working with Greenwald. Perhaps more importantly, billionaire Pierre Omidyar is funding Greenwald’s slow release of those documents and Omidyar’s Paypal colleagues have highly suspicious links to NSA spying and other dangers to civil rights.

It was originally reported that the number of documents Snowden had stolen was in the thousands. Today, however, that number is said to be nearly two million. This calls into question Snowden’s early statement, as reported by Greenwald, that he “carefully evaluated every single document… to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest.” The huge, new number also reveals that less than one tenth of one percent of the documents (only about 900) have actually been released to the public.

How could Snowden have “carefully evaluated every single” one of what is now being said to be nearly two million documents? He only worked for Booz Allen Hamilton for a few months. According to NSA Director Keith Alexander, Snowden also worked directly for NSA for twelve months prior to that, which is interesting. But still, that would require carefully evaluating thousands of documents a day during that entire time. Didn’t he have a job apart from that?

Journalist Margie Burns asked some good questions back in June that have not yet been answered. She wondered about the 29-year old Snowden who had been a U.S. Army Special Forces recruit, a covert CIA operative, and an NSA employee in various capacities, all in just a few, short years. Burns asked “How, exactly, did Snowden get his series of NSA jobs? Did he apply through regular channels? Was it through someone he knew? Who recommended him? Who were his references for a string of six-figure, high-level security jobs? Are there any safeguards in place so that red flags go up when a subcontractor jumps from job to job, especially in high-level clearance positions?”

Five months later, journalists Mark Ames and Yasha Levine investigated some of the businesses in which Greenwald’s benefactor Omidyar had invested. They found that the actual practices of those businesses were considerably less humanitarian than the outward appearance of Omidyar’s ventures often portray. The result was that Omidyar took down references to at least one of those businesses from his website.

In December, whistleblower Sibel Edmonds wrote that Omidyar‘s Paypal Corporation was implicated in the as-yet-unreleased NSA documents from Snowden. Moreover, Edmonds had been contacted by an NSA official who alleged that “a deal was made in early June, 2013 between the journalists involved in this recent NSA scandal and U.S. government officials, which was then sealed by secrecy and nondisclosure agreements by all parties involved.”

Omidyar, the son of Iranian exiles, certainly has had some highly suspicious business associates at Paypal. Here are a few of the most influential of Omidyar’s Paypal colleagues.

Alex Karp used the Paypal framework to start Palantir, the most important company providing spying technology to the NSA. Palantir’s advisors include Condoleezza Rice and former CIA director George Tenet. The word Palantir refers to the seeing stones used primarily by the dark lord Sauron in The Lord of the Rings novels. From 2005 to 2008 the CIA was Palantir’s patron and only customer.

These facts about Omidyar’s Paypal colleagues should raise the level of skepticism about his new media venture with Greenwald and the slow release of the documents stolen by Snowden. It’s clear that Snowden’s whistleblowing has been co-opted by private corporate interests. Are those involved with privatization of the stolen documents also colluding with government agencies to frame and direct national discussions on domestic spying and other serious matters?

The possibilities are endless, it seems. Presenting documents at a measured rate could be a way to acclimate citizens to painful realities without stirring the public into a panic or a unified response that might actually threaten the status quo. And considering that the number of documents has somehow grown from only thousands to nearly two million, the few insiders could release practically anything, thereby controlling national dialogue on many topics.

We live in an age of information war. It does not serve the public interest well to ignore that fact at any time based on pre-conceived notions of what corporations, governments or journalists are capable of. Let’s hope that Greenwald, who has done some good work revealing government misconduct, will immediately release all of the stolen documents, speak to the claims of an alleged deal made with government officials, and admit the risks with regard to Omidyar and his Paypal colleagues.

I do wonder how/why so many so-called professional journalists keep saying “the content of the calls [being monitored by the NSA] remains off-limits”. That’s not propaganda, that’s a flat-out lie. Content monitoring has been admitted by at least one current and one former NSA official, and a former FBI counterterrorism agent:

Refreshing? Media that’s mostly “thanks to”, Pierre Omidyar, co-owner of Paypal and founder, as well as owner, of eBay, who’s pro-NSA spying on citizens and is against whistleblowing is refreshing? What kind of drug have you been consuming, ecstasy?

Mike, take a look, be specific – your comment smells like the stale ad-hominum. I think the photos of unsay installations, the Clapper piece and the Obama/drone story were very good. Take a look. Be spec ific

Why is it a lie to say that “the content of the calls [being monitored by the NSA] remains off-limits”, when we could interpret it as meaning that we’re not permitted to see what the content is that the NSA captures and holds? It’s “off limits” to us, for the NSA ain’t gonna give us access to what they have.

Ok, so I’m adding a bit of humour to this, giving it a slightly different twist, and what the Wa. Post report means to say is that we’re to believe that the NSA is not capturing the contents of calls made by ordinary citizens. As far as I’ve gathered, the NSA is definitely doing this, and it also isn’t going to grant us access to what it has that it shouldn’t have. The latter is “off limits” to us, these perverted peeping toms figure.

Kevin Ryan is without question one of the greatest living American Patriots alive today! Kudos Kevin! We (911 Truth) and fellow Patriots got the war criminals baked into a corner. The Bush gang is coming down!

Johnathan Haidt’s book “The Righteous Mind” – we make these ethical decision: 1) Intuitively,, how this makes me feel. 2) We then bring into play our reasoning to support the decision. It’s scary but it is what we do. Money, shame, belong, status, integrity – what motivates people to do the things we do? Some of us have an inner compass and some an outer compass. I do hate to see Greenwald as another Sarah P. or the legion of famous tragedies we produce but it happens all the time to, otherwise, very good people – a lot of money and fame and suddenly a wreck. Ask Geo. Carlin about this place, what we do to each other – sometimes you have to laugh. Tragic! Sad, but it’s what we do. An ancient scholar said: “Get wealth and place with grace, if not, get wealth and place”. Tell the truth, Glenn Greenwald.

What causes you to think that the things said by Sibel Edmonds about the NSA, Greenwald, Snowden, Omidyar, …, or anything else about all of this, are “completely baseless”, false? What makes you think that the following is false?

I don’t recall her saying in the following 60-minute program with James Corbett and Guillermo Jimenez, editor of Traces of Reality, that Omidyar is “implicated” in NSA spying, but it’s evidently a proven fact that he is seriously supportive.

If your gripe against Sibel Edmonds is for other reasons, then I can’t guess what they might be and the rest of this comment is based on the topic, above.

Sibel is the principal speaker in the discussion. James Corbett and Guillermo Jimenez add a little. It’s done in a critically objective manner, but Sibel speaks by far the most. All it really “boils down to” is questioning along with some facts.

Tell us what’s wrong in what she says? I’ll throw you this challenge, for you did nothing to back up your comment. You only present a very empty gripe. It might even be thought of as akin to slander or libel, because you denigrate without backing up what you say. Always try to back up your criticisms.

She’s persistent. James Corbett and Guillermo Jimenez are much more relaxed in their words, but as persistent as Sibel is, what she says merits attention. If you can prove that she’s wrong, then provide the proof. That shouldn’t be difficult. After all, you pretend to know that she’s wrong. Your only problem is not presenting the proof.

We have evidence against Greenwald, so it’s up to you to prove that Sibel is wrong. How much simpler do you want this to be?

We need to read everything with care, to question everything, but we need to read with especial care all those hit pieces that would damage those points of light that in fact illuminate the almost total blackness that is around us in today’s various security (i.e., police) states.
That said, Greenwald has had a recent fright in the arrest of his colleague and we may need to add that to our thinking on what he has done recently. On the other hand it is pretty clear to me that the Guardian has been guarding the Snowden releases with a midas like possessiveness and also has not seen fit to force the British government into the courts, i.e., to act like true intellectual warriors.
While there is much to be doubted here I think Kevin Ryan’s blanket set goes a bit too far. And in not being more specific about just who he is doubting it IS a ‘blanket.’
Lastly, in all of this we must be sure that we do not damage the little bit of human spirit that Snowden has aroused. On this please look at the alternative of Jefferson’s motto which states that where the spirit is “there is Freedom.” JWC

Greenwald is telling us that all sorts of terrible crimes are being committed (the worst revelations are yet to come, he says) but he won’t tell us about them except in piecemeal fashion over a period of months or years. That means they continue. As an attorney, Greenwald should know that to withhold information about an ongoing crime is a crime.

And there is another problem with and in all of this. For intellectuals to be honest the finest distinctions must be made in the interest of clarity and the facilitation of decision making by citizens. This is a work of love. So my question here is why is Snowden, conflated with Greenwald, the Guardian, its editors (who seem very very main stream), and this money man Omidyar? Why are we so ready to judge Snowden on the basis of the affiliations of some rich business man? Furthermore, it seems to me that the powers-that-be are at great pains to disable any notions that a man can do things for the right reason and substitute for that the notion that, by definition, everyone is corrupt. I mean if that is the case, why print any news at all? And this simple concern to question journalists who attack whistleblowers is given additional weight and underlined by the overwhelming fact (a veritable elephant in the room) that the only people who go to jail ARE the whistleblowers and absolutely none of the criminals they expose! Doesn’t this just say it all. If they can control the courts and the investigative arm of the government, do you think it is impossible for them to control journalists who, it seem obvious, are very very concerned with their careers? In this context Snowden is a very very refreshing breath of fresh air. JWC

What a great point,Kevin.It’s criminal that Greenwald seems to be playing ball with the same folks who brought us 9/11 in Technicolor and Hi-Def.
Why isn’t Larry Silverstine,former porn king,in stir? After all it’s conclusive that he let it slip that he and the FDNY made that decision to explode Building 7.
He should be hung in the public square and we should let Kevin Barrett tan his hide as he writhes in agony.
I.for one,am up to here (places hand up to neck,sideways) with the mainsteam media’s acquiescence to all of these atrocities.
Thank you Kevin for your courage!

Quote:
On December 11, 2013 we contacted Mr. William Binney, a former top official at the National Security Agency (NSA), and asked him to comment on the legitimacy of the above report, and whether he had any knowledge of the partnership and cooperation between NSA and financial institutions such as PayPal. He confirmed the legitimacy of the report and added:

“…”

When asked about the apparent conflict of interest and controversy involving the new business venture between the journalists in question and PayPal’s billionaire owner Pierre Omidyar, he had the following statement:

“Sunlight, transparency, is the only cure; the only way to bring about needed changes. This is why the public is entitled to have all the evidence and documents. The partnership with PayPal’s owner, thus, the new ownership of Mr. Snowden’s documents by an individual who is implicated in these documents, presents grave concerns and consequences, and a major conflict of interest for transparency, integrity and whistleblowers.”

End quote

Sibel Edmonds’ source for this is William Binney, who deservedly is highly regarded for his authentic, real whistleblowing about the NSA.

You’re not really questioning Kevin Ryan or Sibel Edmonds, neither of whom have said anythign that merits critical questioning. You’re questioning William Binney!

But they are not baseless, o ‘follower for many years’.
She actually is a real whistleblower, with a real track record, and an easily
confirmeable pedigree, and who has actually fought the establishment in various courts, and thorugh various gag orders, and is still, remarkeably, alive. Brave lady.
The problem seems to be that the pavlovian response is only to ‘very specific’ whistles being blown.
Look into it, Glen.

They wouldn’t have given her a platform if she would have been willing or able to take them down. You don’t green light someone to be on 60 min if you don’t have control of the outcome.
I’m sure she is a good person but she has limits of what she will and can say.

Send all your info to her she is trustworthy right. Got dirt on 9/11, perhaps a video that messes with the narrative. Just send it to wikileaks or snowden they will expose the truth for you. Right?

I might be mistaken in my interpretation, but the Washington Post article you provided a link for certainly seems to be only good for garbage disposal. Ruth Marcus is an idiot for treating all readers as if they’re all idiots. She wrote a garbage piece that, and as you point out, lies, but she clearly also wrote in a self-righteous, pompous way. It’s bad enough to lie to deceive readers, but to do that while also writing in a self-righteous, pompous and idiotic manner should be enough to cause subscribers to trash their subscriptions to the Wa. Post and whatever other media outlet operates similarly. If she only lied and did so intelligently, then it’d be worth reading when reliable analysts criticize, but she didn’t write intelligently at all. She wrote for idiots, very naive, gullible, … people who pose no questions and would just believe the writer because of the person writing for a BIG newspaper. Big newspaper is good if you need paper to kindle your stove’s firewood or you campfire, but big otherwise is no indication of usefulness. “The bigger, the harder they can fall”, and plenty of people are surely awaiting the fall ending.

It’s much more frustrating to be lied to about important matters when this is done stupidly, rather than when the liar lies intelligently, for then we at least get a little challenge, something worth analyzing and criticizing. Marcus’ piece is only good for immediate garbage disposal.

It wasn’t friendly of you to post the link to that piece of garbage!🙂

The CNET article, however, says what you say it does and it indirectly tells us that the Washington Post piece you provided a link for definitely presents readers with a blatant lie. I’m not going to bother reading the whole CNET piece. It doesn’t even mention Thomas Drake, William Binney or Russell Tice! But, the title and subtitle already tell the reader that what you say that piece reports is something it does report. Before CNET’s piece, however, were Drake, Binney and Tice, and I think that it’s people like them who need to be learned about for what they’ve exposed beginning plenty of years ago.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler definitely isn’t the first person to expose the fact that US “intelligence” agencies spy on communications of citizens.

Excerpt: “In December, 2005, Tice helped spark a national controversy over claims that the NSA and the DIA were engaged in unlawful and unconstitutional wiretaps on American citizens”.

That surely should be understood as meaning US citizens and “legal” residents, that is, “documented” immigrants, sort of like “Landed Immigrant” status in Canada, where the person is recognized as “legal” resident and has many rights citizens have, but not all of them and isn’t a citizen yet; either due to not having been immigrant resident long enough to be eligible for citizenship “naturalization” (weird term), or choosing to delay request for such citizenship.

Actually, it should probably be understood as meaning anyone residing in the US; anyone with a residential address, phone number, ….

Folks,what we have hear is a failure to communicate!! In my endeavors as a facilitator,group leader and relayer of funds to Ralph and Mya it has come to me many,many times that the way to enlightenment and 9/11 truth is via the exciting portal of a thick book left on a motel room twin bed in 1924.I speak,of course,of the UBook,known to non-adepts as the Urantia Book.The truths evident in this book are so startling as to be stunning.
With the sometimes good work of the NSA we can hold our safety sacred and our heads high.There is nothing wrong with good citizens aiding our intelligence agencies in the good fight against fascism and FOR freedom.
Mr. Snowden is beyond reproach and should be up for the Nobel Peace Prize!

Les,I’m quite interested to know more about this doorstop you recommend.Is it available at your rethink911.org site?
Not sure I agree that the NSA is good for us but you have to admit one thing:they let tons of the best sniffy into the country and that stuff really opens the eyelids.Enables the truth,I would say.
Onward,Rory

Kevin:
When linking to Walter Pincus, it is good to remind readers of Pincus’ close ties to the CIA which go back to the 1960’s.
“Before he joined the Post in the 1960s, Pincus traveled abroad on a CIA subsidy to spy on student leaders from other countries.”http://www.namebase.org/news16.html
He remains a mouthpiece for the national security establishment, as other researchers have pointed out. Any “fact” he states should be viewed as disinformation until proven otherwise.

“It was originally reported that the number of documents Snowden had stolen was in the thousands. Today, however, that number is said to be nearly two million.”

Pincus’s piece is linked for the “nearly two million” part of the quoted text.

He wrote, quote:

“Among the roughly 1.7 million documents he walked away with — the vast majority of which have not been made public — are highly sensitive, specific intelligence reports, as well as current and historic requirements the White House has given the agency to guide its collection activities, according to a senior government official with knowledge of the situation.”

Do you, Carolyn, question the 1.7mn, or something else about Pincus’s article? If not the 1.7mn, then it apparently is the only part of Pincus’s article that Kevin Ryan is referring to. Kevin is only referring to the high number of documents while making it clear that he doesn’t believe that a single person could credibly verify this many documents in just a few months. He’s right about that. It isn’t credible.

Even if Snowden wrote a computer program to search the documents, assuming they were electronic/computerized, then he’d still need to verify all of the search results very carefully. This would be very prone to error. The computer program could miss many real “positives”, include plenty of “false positives”, and a thorough job just couldn’t be done using only computer technology without tending to be prone to error. The only way to ensure a thorough inspection would be to do it with human eyes and minds.

If there weren’t anywhere near this high number of documents, say having only a few thousand, then it’s a different matter. It still depends on how much the documents say though. The less each say, the faster a person can verify them. The more text there is to read, obviously the longer it’s going to take to do the reading.

Pincus’s next paragraph says, quote:

“The latter category involves about 2,000 unique taskings that can run to 20 pages each and give reasons for selective targeting to NSA collectors and analysts. These orders alone may run 31,500 pages.”

If he’s right or close to right about all of these numbers, then you should explain what it is that you’re concerned about in his article. He might be lying in other respects. The question for me is whether, or not, you think he’s lying in or with these numbers.

I don’t read NYT, Wa. Post, etc., except when someone provides a link to one of the published articles and it seems worth checking. I don’t trust these media cies or organizations. But they often use half-truths and that includes telling a little truth, rather than only lying. They lie in every way possible; half-truths, distortions, omissions, and, I guess anyway, “full-out” lying. I know about the half-truths, distortions, omissions, but am not sure about “full-out” lying.

If Snowden got only some hundreds or a few thousand documents and some people are saying that he got millions and supposedly said that he verified every one of these, then we have a very serious distortion going on with this. It doesn’t mean that Snowden would be innocent, except for not having gotten the huge number of documents some people would’ve falsely reported that he supposedly got copies of and personally inspected.

From what I’ve been gathering, all of this Snowden stuff is no big deal, for there’re real NSA, …. whistleblowers who blew the whistle several years ago. If Greenwald hasn’t mentioned these other people, real whistleblowers, then there’s something definitely wrong with his reporting and possibly the whole Snowden story. I got the impression that Snowden believes that he’s exposing something new. He isn’t. He may possibly be adding more information, but we already knew back in 2005 that the NSA was spying on the communications of US citizens or residents.

I try to keep an open mind as I try to sort out the truth in this murky Snowden affair. I find Ryan’s post to be helpful, but as he himself would probably admit, far from the final word. When I cautioned about using Pincus as a source, I was only referencing the number of documents assertion. This is the first time I had seen this number and I was recommending extreme caution in putting weight on it.
Politico talked about Pincus’ “close ties to the CIA.” One reporter “described Pincus by saying that ‘some in the agency refer to [Pincus] as “the CIA’s house reporter.'” Investigative blogger Emtywheel wrote, ‘You Can’t Spell “Walter Pincus” without C, I, and A.’
– See more at: http://www.emptywheel.net/2009/05/16/you-cant-spell-walter-pincus-without-c-i-and-a/#sthash.ggecqrKd.dpuf
He was an outspoken defender of CIA torture during the Bush years and his son Andrew was counsel for Blackwater, the private paramilitary corporation that works closely with the CIA and the US military. I repeat what I said above: I would assume anything Pincus writes as CIA disinformation unless it is corroborated by more trustworthy sources.
Yes, the Wapo is awful, and I agree that most major media outlets carry water for our political elites. All the more reason to quote them critically.
I have enormous respect for Kevin Ryan. His recent book on 9/11 will be invaluable to persons trying to understand who was responsible for that crime. All the more reason for him to demonstrate that he is meticulous in his research on other topics.

Really nice to see at least one other site questioning the REALITY of Snowden, but you’ve potentially missed what he’s hiding. When intel says LOOK HERE (which in this case, is Snowden’s alleged documents), where should one be looking?

Blog author, would love to repost your article in full on occupythebanks.com

Let me know if you would let us do that, royalty/fee free (hey, if only you knew what staying posting with Menwith Hill up your arse 24/7 for two years does to your finances … Really, that’s not funny at all), let me know, via the form you can find from ABOUT top nav, or via twitter @censorednewsnow (please include a link back to this post if you give permission … so I can find it again ).

Go to the page you provided a link for while using Firefox with the NoScript and RequestPolicy add-ons. The website or page links in many garbage domains. It’s an incredibly long list of domains for no good reason! I’ve not before seen such a long list of domains being linked at any website and many that you use are garbage, at best. I’ve been to some websites that link in plenty of garbage domains, but not as many as found with occupythebanks.com page you provided a link for.

People who don’t make use of Web browser extensions for security as I do won’t notice all of the garbage domains linked in at websites they use. These people will be left clueless about this.

Whatever the article supposedly says, for I’m still not getting it and definitely am not going to allow all of the domains the page links to, if the information is truly of value, then we should probably be able to get it at GlobalResearch.ca, a website that’s operated very cleanly. Any important information will be presented, online, in Web pages that don’t link to or which aren’t associated with many garbage domains.

Quote: “(please include a link back to this post if you give permission … so I can find it again )”.

Lazy? All you’d have to do is return to this page, press CTRL+F, enter occupythebanks and then press Enter/Return. It’ll cause the page to “jump” to your first post and then you can press, I think, F3 or CTRL+G to go to your subsequent posts. CTRL+G works in Firefox but I’m not sure about other Web browsers.

If you don’t know this, then what credibility are you to be expected to have? You might indeed merit some credibility, but very little. You’d merit being perceived as extremely junior for Internet users and that can be understandable for a very young person, but many people won’t give very young persons much attention when it comes to very important topics or issues. After all, very young normally also means very inexperienced. I know there’re young teens who certainly strike me as more mature than many so-called adults are. The world is like “fuzzy logic”.

For Fukushima, I think GlobalResearch.ca is quite sufficient for most people wanting to be well informed. GR can be behind a little for publication, but it generally is a reliable source and it isn’t only GR staff who writes there. GR has articles from many (external) contributors, including Kevin Ryan, but GR also has copies of news articles from various sources or agencies (whatever). When the feature and news articles aren’t by GR staff, like the main editor, Professor Michel Chossudovsky, f.e., then a disclaimer is provided following the articles. Maybe that’s even true with articles by some GR staff. I haven’t checked in those cases.

If I want to search DigWithin.net for articles containing a particular word, which can be found in the articles or in user comments, then it only requires searching with the word or phrase and the domain to be searched. As I do this, the domain needs to be preceded with the “site:” option, without any spaces following the colon (or maybe spaces are ignored ?). If I want to search DigWithin.net for all of your comments, then I can use the following search terms at Google, IXQuck.com, StartPage.com or DuckDuckGo.com, f.e.

censorednewsnow site:digwithin.net

The following search will return all articles at GR mentionning “Fukushima”.

Fukushima site:globalresearch.ca

Fukushima doesn’t need to be capitalized. I’m pretty sure upper and lower-case characters are treated as the same anyway.

That’s a domain search using a Web search engine; not when searching a Web page we have loaded in the tab we’re presently located in or at, for then it’s just CTRL+F and CTRL+G, plus the word or phrase to search for.

More important, however, and imo, is that you clean up/out your website, getting rid of the many linked domains that there should be absolutely no need for. Using one or two to permit yourself to possibly derive some funding through advertisizing websites that people using NoScript and RequestPolicy, as well as AdBlock Plus, can block is one thing; but your page is associated with very MANY domains and many of these can and should be disposed of.

Getting a blog can be obtained for free, I believe. I have a WordPress account and it apparently remains free, but I think blogger.com or blogspot.com provides blogs for free as well.

If you don’t clean up/out your website, then people who make regular use of security Web browser add-ons as I do will visit, look/inspect, scram and then stay away.

Folks,what we have hear is a failure to communicate!! … (snip)
With the sometimes good work of the NSA we can hold our safety sacred and our heads high.There is nothing wrong with good citizens aiding our intelligence agencies in the good fight against fascism and FOR freedom.
End quote

Failure to communicate? No kidding, and one thing that seems to fail to be well understood is that the federal govt and its “intelligence” agencies aren’t fighting against fascism or for real freedom at all. Anyone who possesses fine common sense realizes this, but we also live in a world in which there’re many liars, plus other people who lack common sense, are brainwashed, dumbed down, etc.

It clearly doesn’t care about real freedom, respect for human rights, the US Constitution and the international laws, etc., Washington is co-signatory to. Etc. If the opposite were true, then we would have proof of it, instead of having only proof of the contrary.

I would imagine the part “which was then sealed by secrecy and nondisclosure agreements by all parties involved” of the equation, will sure cover the “let’s hope Greenwald will immediately release all of the stolen documents, speak to the claims of an alleged deal made with government officials, and admit the risks with regard to Omidyar and his Paypal colleagues”🙂

The issue of gradual release or “data dump” is obviously complex, and has been covered by many good minds. A Wikileaks-style dump of a large number of documents carries the risk, if not picked up by solid folks who will continue relentlessly to work through them, of falling out of the public/press’s miniscule attention span. There’s every reason to be suspicious of the gradualness in this Greenwald case, but there’s also a good argument for it — it has been, what?, nine months or so, and it is still getting a lot of attention, buttressed by the ongoing “what the hell will it be next” phenomenon.

And there’s the larger background issue of the need for heroic figures that Sibel articulates well (if at risk of driving it into the ground) at

While we are all consumed and distracted by Mr. Greenwald and the Snowden revelations, WHAT ELSE is going on that we are not paying attention to?

Keep in mind that magicians don’t really do “magic” – they perform “illusions.” Spies do the same things. They want you to think they are doing one thing, while they are actually doing something else. They want you to believe they are doing “this” (See? Nothing up my sleeve.) while they are really doing “that” …or several other things.

“Illusions” are accomplished by mis-direction. While one hand waves a colorful bouquet in the air, the other hand is picking your pocket. While we all watch the slow revealing of the NSA secrets Mr. Snowden has liberated, (Again, nothing up my sleeve!) what else is going on “over there” and “over here”? Whose pocket is being picked? What other operation(s) are going un-noticed?

The second fallacy to be aware of – and is very evident in reading the responses and comments posted here on this page:

* mudding the water: throwing so much unrelated material into the argument that it is no longer possible focus on the matter-at-hand or to form a clear picture of the real issue.

And a third fallacy I see in obvious use:

* poisoning the well: questioning the authority or validity of a source in order to discredit that source.

Biggest issue = “Divide and conquer.” If the government (or “secret government”) can keep the common folk distracted and fighting amongst themselves over petit issues ( gay marriage, pot use, republicans vs democrats?) we will be divided, weak and unable to recognize that they are doing bigger things we don’t notice, such as “economic restructuring” … which entails dragging the American middle class down to third world levels so we will be grateful and eager to have even a minimum wage job.

You can do a google search for “logical fallacies” for a complete list and explanation of some of the obvious and not-so-obvious tricks that are being played on “The People” even as we speak. So keep your thinking hat on. Be skeptical.

1. Your skepticism regarding the number of docs going from a couple thousand to millions is warranted. That is bizarre. Although, it is highly circumstantial nonetheless. This line of reasoning needs to be followed up more, because it is a discrepancy that needs to be ironed out.

2. That Omidyar works with people that are NSA sympathizers and thus is by association a sympathizer, and even an active agent of the NSA, is, again, highly circumstantial.

3. BFP’s source in the NSA has provided zero proof of their being an NDA written up between Snowden/GG and the govt. While Edmond’s has proven herself to be a reliable journalist and whistleblower, and so she has credit on her side, this is nonetheless heresay, until backed up by documents. Nothing more, nothing less.

4. You concluded: “These facts about Omidyar’s Paypal colleagues should raise the level of skepticism about his new media venture with Greenwald and the slow release of the documents stolen by Snowden. It’s clear that Snowden’s whistleblowing has been co-opted by private corporate interests. Are those involved with privatization of the stolen documents also colluding with government agencies to frame and direct national discussions on domestic spying and other serious matters?”

The latter two sentences in this conclusion contradict the initial one. If said facts are to “raise the level of skepticism” then that would imply the truth is still out there to be validated and all we presently have is circumstantial evidence suggesting foul play — albeit interesting, good questions, but theories which are unsubstantiated as of yet. Therefore, if one is to remain skeptical, as you rightfully encourage, then how can it be “clear that Snowden’s whistleblowing has been co-opted by private corporate interests?” Nothing is “clear,” and you had just stated that we ought to become skeptical about the facts, which means we ask questions, not arrive at baseless conclusions, like Snowden’s files being “co-opted.” Also, the files have not been “privatized” — again this is speculation which you treat as fact. Of course the files will be published largely in the new media venture with Omidyar, but that does not necessitate or compel the files to be published exclusively within said media.

This current story, which has relied up circumstantial evidence, is dividing truth movements and the democratic process itself. Edmond’s source is the closest to a smoking gun, but again presents zero evidence of their being a NDA written up between the parties involved. Sure, ask questions. That is great. But to throw Snowden and GG under the bus as being co-opted by the govt with assertions which are highly skeptical is ridiculous at best, and dangerous and divisive to the independent community of citizen journalists at worst.

There are voices out there who are still not buying the Snowden story, talking about black operation.

I find this helpful in the article above:

“The powers-that-be don’t have allegiances to nations, they just want control over them. If we understand the globalist agenda to centralize power, America must be destroyed as a super power and brought under the control of a larger governing body like NATO or the UN.

In order for that to occur, America must be viewed as the enemy of peace and human rights around the world. Mission accomplished, apparently. From this growing “reaction” we will see a “solution” presented shortly. In fact, global citizens may demand action against the U.S. if this continues.”

But contrary to what is implied by Ryan, this huge discrepancy in numbers did not come from either Snowden or Greenwald. The first linked article which supplied the “in the thousands” number was a Forbes article that was quoting NSA Director Michael Hayden. The second linked article, which estimated the actual number at 1.7 million came from a Washington Post article.

Ryan’s hit piece makes it appear as if Snowden and Greenwald had been the source of the discrepancy, when, it truth, the discrepancy flowed from the MSM’s official source narrative.

From this false attribution, Ryan goes on to imply that Snowden’s and Greenwald’s statements to the effect that they carefully evaluated every document before releasing them could not be true if there were some 1.7 million documents.

The use of the word “documents” is misleading, since what Snowden captured was electronic data.

The entire Ryan hit piece amounts to a theater of the absurd. As Ryan, himself, admits, there were only 900 “documents” total that have been released. Those 900 were not released all at once, but, instead, in a series of revelations.

Ryan does not cite, and this writer is unaware of, any instance in which either Snowden or Greenwald have claimed to have vetted each and every document. It should be obvious to anyone who is not bent on an intelligence community campaign to discredit Snowden and Greenwald, that their reference to carefully evaluating before releasing pertains to the decision they made on each occasion as to whether a specific set of data (“document”) should be publicly released, and not to the entire set of data that Snowden, in his capacity of a Booz Allen employee, captured.

Finally, this is not a matter of “trusting” either Snowden, Greenwald, or General Michael Hayden, for that matter. Ryan’s hit piece, like so many others, entails an effort to slay the messenger in order to divert attention from the unmistakeable message–the content of Snowden’s revelations that reveal not only massive NSA violations of our 4th Amendment rights but the fact that the NSA has repeatedly lied about its activities.

Since we’re talking about false attribution, readers might note that my article does not attribute the ever-changing numbers of the Snowden documents specifically to Snowden or Greenwald. That pretty much negates this entire emotional reaction.

“It was originally reported that the number of documents Snowden had stolen was in the thousands. Today, however, that number is said to be nearly two million. This calls into question Snowden’s early statement, as reported by Greenwald, that he “carefully evaluated every single document… to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest.” The huge, new number also reveals that less than one tenth of one percent of the documents (only about 900) have actually been released to the public.

How could Snowden have “carefully evaluated every single” one of what is now being said to be nearly two million documents?”

Two immediate problems:
(1) The change in numbers. is only a change if some single reliable source is the one changing the claim. (For instance, suppose Ann Coulter, who is at least as reliable as Walter Pincus, came out and said it was a trillion documents. That wouldn’t mean the number had changed.) Is there anyone aside from the NSA itself – or Walter Pincus’ fevered imagination – who is making numerical claims in contradiction to Greenwald?
(2) You say the number “reveals” something bad about Greenwald/Snowden. But the number only “reveals” something, period (other than the NSA’s attempt to smear Snowden and Greenwald), if it is reliable. Linking to things that cause controversy might be fun for you, but is there any reason to think these links are reliable on this question? More reliable than, say, Snowden or Greenwald – who actually leaked, and possess, the documents in question?

All that being said, it’s certainly true that you don’t directly attribute the inconsistency to Greenwald. But I think the point of the comment Bilbo pasted is that you imply – by basing your claims on what these new numbers “reveal” – that Greenwald has been misleading or dishonest specifically regarding the size of the leak, which does indeed “imply” that “Snowden and Greenwald [are] the source of the discrepancy”, since when you lie about stuff, you’re responsible for the confusion that results.

But again, it’s true that you don’t do this directly. In this way you can be favorably contrasted with other commentators, like Sibel Edmonds, who do carelessly raise the “now it’s this number, now it’s that number” complaint in contexts that suggest Greenwald is responsible.

Mr X sometimes spreads falsehoods. Mr X tells me something, therefore it is false.. Not. Rather, maybe it is false and maybe it is true. If it would be troubling if it were true, and it may be true, or I think it is true, then I am troubled by it. (Assuming that by ‘reliable’ you mean ‘truth-telling’.)

“Nit-pickers or logic-twisters” are just pointing out that the people claiming the number of documents are much higher are probably not trustworthy, and that basing any accusations of Greenwald or Snowden on those numbers is not fair.

I was referring to some commentors’ misinterpretations and misrepresentations of various points that Kevin made, not just the comments on the numbers of docs. For instance, one commentor wrote: “That Omidyar works with people that are NSA sympathizers and thus is by association a sympathizer, and even an active agent of the NSA, is, again, highly circumstantial.”

I can’t find the line in Kevin’s article where he says ‘Omidyar by association is an NSA sympathizer’. Did the commentor infer it from, “Are those involved with privatization of the stolen documents also colluding with government agencies…?”

I appreciate writers who invite speculation based on inconclusive information because speculation can lead to investigation which may lead to conclusive facts. But words put in the writer’s mouth that express unwarranted or premature conclusions, when he did not, don’t belong in the discussion.

My guess has been that the image of the USA is shown with an eye laid over it, sort of like the eye over the pyramid on the back side of the US dollar. If that’s what the image in Kevin’s article represents, the eye over the country, then it’s evidently due to the NSA’s pervasive/extensive spying on citizens.

Here’s a good and new Boiling Frogs Post video by James Corbett, who published this on 8 Jan 2014 at his YouTube channel.

I’ll use the title of the transcript and sources page. It’s also the title used for the boilingfrogspost upload of the video at YouTube, as well.

“Secrets for Sale?: The Greenwald/Omidyar/NSA connection – YouTube”,

I definitely recommend that people check the transcript and sources page. It isn’t complete, but it is for the words spoken by James Corbett. F.e.:

At about 12:50 we have a clip for a short interview with journalist Alexa O’Brien being asked what she thinks “of the new Omidyar/Greenwald venture” and, “Considering Paypal’s Wikileaks boycott, is Omidyar a problematic partner?”. She explains why she doesn’t trust him.

Corbett then plays words of John Young of “cyptome.org”, which should be spelled cryptome.org.

Regarding the article by Sibel Edmonds (linked in the transcript and sources page), John Young says that she wrote “a great piece” and that he believes “we’ll see more of that”. He also believes and clearly hopes that Greenwald will eventually begin to start responding as he journalistically should.

It’s quite or else very favorable for Snowden and is straight-forwardly written, but since it isn’t yet known what the total number of pages (using PDF pages for the calculations) there are for these documents that Snowden “snuck out” of the NSA, there’s no present way of being able to be certain of how long it will or may take before all of them will have been released. The worst case scenario is over 40 years.

That could make plenty of people angry at Snowden, but the article also explains that it’s very likely that he took or used security measures to protect himself. That’s about how the releases likely will happen; if he applied the described measures for self-protection.

The explanation is very easy to understand and I only know of Cryptome, founded and edited or run by John Young, being highly trustworthy.

People can find more related articles (web pages and PDF files) in the cryptome home page, if interested in checking what these are. The Web page format for one of the related PDF files is linked in the video’s transcript and sources page and is the link for a copy of an email exchange Greenwald had with a reader. The cryptome PDF file is entitled, “Glenn Greenwald Assesses the Omidyar Gambit”.

Greenwald, along with the Rothschild-family-dominated Guardian (see below) and the CIA’s ‘Operation Mockingbird’ New York Times, are likely running a whistleblower entrapment scheme with this farce. The ‘brave Snowden journalist’ meme may well be an attempt to lure other whistleblowers into trusting Guardian etc, then report them to CIA-NSA etc., silence them and kill them.

Shimatsu speaks of how Greenwald etc tricked Snowden into leaving Hong Kong where he was actually safe under Chinese protection, the ruse was an actor falsely posing as someone from the Beijing gov’t telling Snowden to get out, Greenwald’s team dumping Snowden in Russia, hoping Putin would not allow him to stay … Snowden apparently tricked into handing over his documents to Greenwald before leaving Hong Kong, the CIA’s boy in Brazil never intending to reveal most of them.

—

Curious background to Greenwald, recounted by Shimatsu, who says Greenwald had been a lawyer accused of illegal surveillance crimes (!), then became an owner of porn websites, like Jimmy Wales alleged ‘founder’ of the CIA’s Wikipedia, only gay porn in Greenwald’s case. Then Greenwald got into financial and tax trouble from his gay porn companies …

And Greenwald then suddenly began a climb to fame working for 3 billionaire families – for Bill Gates (Salon), where Greenwald was never a ‘brave’ journalist, Greenwald too frightened to write about huge evidence of US judicial corruption and bribery; then the Guardian, heavily overseen by the world’s wealthiest family, the Rothschilds (Paul Myners of Rothschild is chairman Guardian Media, Anthony Salz of investment bank Rothschild on Scott Trust owning Guardian), and now Greenwald is with eBay PayPal Iranian-American billionaire Pierre Omidyar, dubious as noted above …

Greenwald’s New York Times and Guardian (‘left wing of MI6’), are both known for spreading CIA dis-info, like the Syria ‘chemical weapons’ hoaxes, they do not care about truth or press freedom, so why are they being ‘nice’ to us with this Snowden info ? Guardian and NYT joined hands in the pump and then dump of Julian Assange too, as if under joint orders.

Is Snowden himself real, or was he duped by Greenwald & Co as Shimatsu says?

We will know shortly, by Snowden’s reaction (or lack of it) to the corruption of Greenwald, the Guardian and the New York Times about him and his status, an issue about to be forced into the open more dramatically.

Snowden ‘news’ has been not all that new, in fact; it was heavy media hype with more detail on what 5+ NSA whistleblowers revealed years before, like Russell Tice, so sharp with his theme on NSA blackmail of all US politicians, presidents, judges … whereas Tice and others were ignored and marginalised by NYT and Guardian and other corp media, left to tell their story on so-called ‘conspiracy’ websites.

—

Whether Snowden himself is real or a victim, it is quite clear Greenwald, Guardian and the CIA’s New York Times have all been ‘captured’ by the US oligarch powers.

What is the CIA’s ‘Snowden revelation’ game? – Likely several of the following:

(1) Distract from, defuse more serious revelations
(2) Increase US terror among both US and world citizens
(3) Help locate other US dissidents, dupe them into trusting fake ‘brave reporters’, silence them and kill them
(4) Penetrate Russia / China via a double agent
(5) Advance CIA side of old CIA – NSA turf and budget war
(6) Anticipating US economic collapse from the end of the petro-dollar and corollary US Treasury Bond implosion, oligarchs have begun channelling global scorn of US, toward a future media-hyped global government scheme

Any way I look at it, the Omidyar pay-pal deal is clear conflict of interest .

Of the however many documents – regularly reported only 1% released, and no talk atall from EdwardS to give me some kind of bone to chew on, Glen Greenwald becomes the only dataholder/spokesperson could properly answer the questions being rightfully put – that is apart from his partner carrying encrypted files thru Heathrow with a password in his pocket.
Why would a known associate in this saga carry topNSAsecret encrypted data through Heathrow with a password to it in his pocket? Maybe the movie is a comedy ?

These links are from the transcript and sources page for the CorbettReport video linked in my prior post, above.

This one is for an interview with Kevin Ryan that James Corbett pubished on 5 Jan 2014 as the first piece of 2014. The interview is strongly complementary for the article by Kevin that this page here, at DigWith.net, is for.

It’s wholly interesting, but one part that caught my attention in particular is Kevin Ryan explaining how he sees this NSA saga/story as being related to 9/11. The thought may’ve previously crossed my mind, but it would’ve been superficially and Kevin states a very interesting explanation that I definitely can’t disagree with.

Next is a link for another very interesting and good CorbettReport interview with John Young of cryptome.org, published on 17 Dec 2013.

Both interviews presently are available only in MP3 format from Corbett Report. Video versions of neither of these interviews have been produced yet, or there’s definitely none available yet anyway. Sometimes James Corbett eventually publishes video format versions, but this isn’t always done; and when it is done, then the videos usually are also published at the corbettreport YouTube channel.

Presently, however, YouTube user BoazGuttman uploaded the MP3 to YouTube for the interview with John Young. The Like button and commenting are both disabled, but some people might still want to add the link to their YouTube playlists.

Could it be that Snowen is in Russia as a Trojan horse, and that was a way to kill 2 birds. Get Americans reactions to mass spying and put and expert hack in Russia Putin beware. Kevin thanks for heads up grace be with u OXOXOX

Your cynicism is pointed in the wrong direction. Look at what is happening here; even the alternative media is desperate to make people believe that sincere and altruistic persons are not a human possibility!
But if that is the case, and they want you to believe it, then why have any dialogue at all? Why have schools, books, poetry, libraries, museums, the opera, etc.? Indeed, why have mirrors if we cannot look at ourselves and want to change? See what I mean? JWC

Snowden’s the most effective thing this “Scientific Dictatorship” (Huxley) has ever done. I’ve been doing a WTC7 awareness table at our Saturday Market for 3 yrs. and did the 1st one, for this yr., today. People are genuinely afraid they are being watched – one said: “I think you’re a plant to collect names.” America has become a society of chicken shits and bullies. I asked another guy what he was afraid of: “My kids, they go after your kids.” What the hell is going on? June 26th I take the the show into our Capitol bldg’s. lobby during Oregon’s legislative session – very interested to see how our “lawmakers” respond – I’ll bet they give the tables and projectors a wide berth – like circling a skunk! Ha Ha – what a place!

Marvin: Your second sentence, and what follows it, seems to be a complete disconnect with your first sentence. Could you explain? What is your view of Snowden? Did you see “Citizen Four?” Do you agree with Kevin?
This is not clear. What are you saying? We ought to fear what is ugly and evil. Thus it is not “chicken shit” to do so. We are chickens based upon what we do or refuse to do. And in any case, it is not beneath these security state people to plant a 9/11 awareness shill at a convention, is it? Why wouldn’t intelligent people question everything? Or are you just taking this personally and not taking the time to look and see what thoughtful people are actually undergoing? So, again, could you explain yourself in clear language? JWC

I noticed a distinctly stronger chill at my WTC7 awareness table from last year and the year before. After an hour I decided to ask some people I had spoken with last yr. The NSA has risen to a place consciousness that their behavior did not have before. Snowden is a limited hangout – the entire episode is a planned and very successful chilling of America’s body politic discussing foreign policy or 9/11 among ourselves. Listen to the Snowden – sincere, gentle, engaging, bright, intelligent, boyish, good looking, nerdy geeky persona, white – he’s perfect! And, look what has been disclosed since he and Greenwald began – nothing – except we all are now aware of the gigantic storage in Utah, algorithms used in intelligence gathering – shit – I never heard of it. And by chicken shit I mean – we will take an oath to defend the country with our life but will not speak out unless the speaking will be approved.

Marvin: Some of my questions and failure to understand are rooted I believe in your lack of editorial care in your comments. For example your “sentence”: “The NSA has risen to a place consciousness that their behavior did not have before,” forces readers to guess what your meaning actually is–a thing they should not have to do in a care-full conversation. So that said,
Questions: 1) Does your “awareness table” refer to a real table written down somewhere (and if so what are the actual numbers), or is it in your consciousness (and informed sentiments) only? I am not clear.
Later you refer to a “chilling of America’s body politic….’ But did you forget that I said that it was “correct to fear what is ugly” stating that that in itself does not make one a coward. You did not respond to that. Why not? Did that not seem relevant to you? I am, at least in my mind, referring to 1st principles here. Do you mean to ignore that?
And another thing; there is nothing new, at least since Plato and Heraclitus before him, in the fact that “the many are bad and the few good.” So, to find that the many are “would put you to death one day and bring you back to life the next–with equal indifference to reason,” is to have found nothing new at all, eh? After all the vast majority stand in a place on Monday that is quite the opposite from the one they took on Sunday, right? Also, with an eye to the larger topic, remember that the Revolution was won with a very small percentage of our new citizens. And, for another example, an unbelievably small number of Irish brought the British Empire to the negotiating table! So, to come back to our situation, very few of our neighbors will stand at the barricades with us. But there is nothing new about that. The many will find a revolution inconvenient, as they always have.
Question 2) So, to refer again back to the “chilling” spoken of above, am I to assume from this that you are suggesting that Snowden’s seemingly successful escape with the goods DISCOURAGED Americans instead of ENCOURAGING them that such things were possible, namely that it was and is possible to beat the most sophisticated spy system on the planet? If so, this seems to invert the logic of the thing, of human psychology.
Now, I think we have to point out that, however rare examples of it might be, there is such a thing as an intellectual warrior. It follows from this admitted rarity that “the many” (the average journalist) will be tested by and usually succumb to the increasing number of arrests, trials, convictions, imprisonments, and even the “suicides” of investigative journalists and whistle blowers etc. Indeed, to my mind there is enough of this heavy handed justice department nonsense now to account for the “chill” on your radar–though I do not think you bothered to mention this–this, if you will excuse my saying it, goes to intellectual honesty. With these other “chilling” cases in mind, I do not think that you need Snowden’s (apparent) success to account for your perceived “chill,” either in journalists or in ordinary citizens. Cowards will be cowards. But as history has told us, that rare individual will in fact pledge his life and his “sacred honor” for the principles that he believes to be sound. History says, in other words, that a Snowden is a possiblility.
And, indeed, the public would not need the cynical corrective on this offered by you and Ryan if what he has done did not look like a success to most, eh? So, I think it is essentially weak to suggest that this (publicly perceived) “success” can account for your perceived “chilling” of the public’s need to know–much less be the result of some “sophisticated” plan by the geniuses locked up in the offices of our “intelligence” networks! They are, as I hope you know, not that smart.
Of course if he is a shill for the intelligence networks then your observations may prove down the line to be cogent. And I agree with your right to interject such theories as well as the need for an open debate as an essential feature of a genuinely free republic. But I think that snowden’s disarming looks and the (admitted paucity) of the Greenwald material is a bit week to account for any real certainty on anybodies part that Snowden is a shill. Do you in fact think otherwise, or think that his “success” weighs more than all the documented harassment of whistle blowers and investigative journalists?
Another reason to doubt your own certainty on this (and we should always be in a critical relationship with “what we think we know”) is that if you are right, the only persons who are in agreement with your cynical take are the official inveterate liars at the various corporate propaganda organizations–no longer recognizable as anything even resembling a free press–and which members, when looking at their own manifest duplicity, are no longer recognizable as men capable of imagining that a man of conscience is even possible. And this, says a lot, does it not, about what they think of themselves? For clearly when a thief looks out upon the world all he is able to see is a world of thieves, right?
Of course this last observation should encourage all of us to look in the mirror to make sure that our “critical” observations are not in fact cynicism. I say this because as I try to keep reminding people there is an inner dimension to all of this political (outer) stuff. I mean if ageless wisdom has it and we gain a winning party and lose our souls in the process, then we have lost the whole thing, eh? I am assuming here, as a basis for my efforts in this conversation, that while you do believe that a man of conscience is a human possibility, you just do not think that Snowden is such a creature. Am I correct? Thanks. JWC

The meaning of my comment was: The Snowden “Limited-Hangout” was very effective. Before Snowden the NSA was not on the American’s radar – today, 1 yr. later, people are scared, it worked very well and a casting director from Hollywood could not have picked a more perfect persona, sincere, attractive, nerdy, young, intelligent, honest (?). The table is a card table with ae911truth.org literature, books, and laptops with WTC7 videos – a schtik I do every Saturday at our Farmers’ Market. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYgaynolNgY

So, your position is: it is possible for Snowden to be who he says he is, but he is just too perfect and therefore you just don’t believe it. Now, even I can see reasons for caution, but not unless I can see some clear motive on the part of the intelligence agencies to set him up with a national (even international) card table, and also see the nature of the harm that has been done to the public’s understanding of what is being done to them. The harm is a big issue since I have never seen that these morons have ever done anything to further the nation, at least not if that nation is defined by the founding documents. Of course when reading the history of American foreign policy every paragraph has a reference to “American interests abroad,” etc., but it is hard to find any explanation of just what those interests are, eh? Thanks for the reply. JWC